Posted on 13/09/2012 by Stratty

Dutch election aftermath: it’s pretty much all good

Dutch election yesterday, with preliminary results as follows, via Parties and Elections in Europe:

Party - Preliminary results (99,5%) -		Ideology, Affiliation, Founding		2012	Seats	2010	Seats
	Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy	Conservative liberalism	ELDR, LI 1948	26,5%	41	20,4%	31
	Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) Labour Party	Social democracy Third Way	PES, SI 1946	24,7%	39	19,6%	30
	Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) Freedom Party	Right-wing populism Conservative liberalism	- 2004	10,1%	15	15,5%	24
	Socialistische Partij (SP) Socialist Party	Democratic socialism	- 1972	9,6%	15	9,9%	15
	Christen Democratisch Appèl (CDA) Christian Democratic Appeal	Christian democracy	EPP, CDI 1980	8,5%	13	13,7%	21
	Democraten 66 (D66) Democrats 66	Social liberalism	ELDR, LI 1966	7,9%	12	6,9%	10
	Christen Unie (CU) Christian Union	Christian democracy Evangelicalism	ECPM 2001	3,1%	5	3,3%	5
	Groen Links (GL) Green Left	Green politics	EGP, GG 1991	2,3%	3	6,6%	10
	Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP) Reformed Political Party	Christian right Evangelicalism	- 1918	2,1%	3	1,7%	2
	50 Plus (50+) 50 Plus	Pensioners’ interests	- 2009	1,9%	2	-	-
	Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD) Party for the Animals	Animal welfare Green politics	- 2002	1,9%	2	1,3%	2
Others		-	-	1,4%	-	1,1%	-
Total		-	-	-	150	-	150
Turnout				73,8%		74,7%

If you’re anything like me, you see a gazillion parties in a PR system, many of which have names with far too many vowels, and yes, there’s a party in parliament called Party for the Animals, but what does it all mean?

Here’s the gist of it:

The “business-liberal” VVD has obtained its best result ever under its leader, Prime Minister Mark Rutte, but VVD’s minority coalition partner, CDA, lost almost as many seats as VVD gained.
The election was caused by the decision of Geert Wilders‘ anti-Islamic, anti-EU PVV to withdraw support for the government; PVV lost a bunch of seats. Well, good.
The social democratic PvdA (aka Labour) has reversed a seemingly hopeless trend of losing seats. I wish it had happened under their last leader, the wonderful former mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, but good on you, Diederik Samsom – the Labour leader apparently did quite well in the debates.
The formerly dominant Christian Democratic Appeal has been sinking election by election into an unexpected near-oblivion, losing 20% support in ten years (from 28.6 in 2003 to 8.5 in 2012).
As for the smaller parties, the most notable results were the emergence of an eleventh party in the Tweede Kamer (because every country needs more than ten parties in a 150-seat legislature?), 50-Plus, representing seniors; and a poor showing for the leftist environmentalist GL.

The simplest analysis is as follows: PVV lost support to the VVD for being anti-EU / pulling the plug on the government, PvdA picked up support from the GL. Given that the CDA is Christian yet centrist, its losses likely benefited both the individualist VVD and collectivist PvdA.

Dutch elections have always been messily democratic but in the past decade it all just got so ugly, what with the anti-Islamic politics and the assassinations and the shockingly illiberal administrations. The rise of the Socialist Party (now seemingly in check) has also been tricky for government formation, and the VVD kept spitting out xenophobic mavericks like Wilders and Rita Verdonk.* For moderates, yesterday’s election had, I think, a good result.

Now, as to government formation, here are some numbers. The government needs 76 seats:

VVD-CDA (current cabinet) 56; with PVV support, 69 – no majority
VVD-PvdA (two largest parties) 80 – majority
VVD-PvdA-D66 (so-called “purple coalition” dominant in the 90s, business-liberal/social-democratic/social-liberal) 92 – vast majority
PvdA-CDA-D66 (centre-left coalition that excludes VVD) 64 – no majority; with SP support (not gonna happen) 79 – majority
VVD-CDA-D66 (centrist coalition that excludes Labour) 66 – no majority; with PVV support (not gonna happen; D66 wouldn’t go for it) 81 – majority

In other words, it’s unlikely that a coalition could be formed without VVD or PvdA, unless marginal or small parties are called in for support, and that opens up a whole new can of worms: both the evangelical SGP and the PvdD are “testimonial,” Socialists refuse to go into government, PVV is objectionable to the leftist parties, etc.

A new purple coalition is a nice idea, though – I see no reason why classical and social liberals and social democrats can’t work together, and the need to keep PvdA and D66 happy would allow Rutte to keep the xenophobes and populists at bay. Still, Rutte might well take the more stable option of a simple VVD-PvdA coalition, and why not? It’s been two decades since a two-party majority government has been even possible.

And maybe such a coalition would legalize marijuana for foreigners again, because from what I hazily recall, that was pretty cool.

—

* A few thoughts about the xenophobic trend in Dutch politics. I should start by saying that of course I am aghast at how folks like Pim Fortuyn, Wilders, and Verdonk have scapegoated Islam, but having spent time in the Netherlands during the 2006 election, talking to folks in Amsterdam about this issue, it’s not as black-and-white as the once-tolerant Dutch suddenly turning into rabid racists.

While we think of xenophobic politics as inherently right-wing, it’s worth noting that none of the prominent anti-Islamic politicians have come from the right. Quite the contrary: Pim Fortuyn was a former Communist and PvdA member; Wilders and Verdonk started in the liberal VVD. That’s not a coincidence, nor is the fact that none of these politicians idealized Judeo-Christian values: Fortuyn was an atheist, Wilders is an agnostic, Verdonk a lapsed Catholic.

The uncomfortable fact for us social liberals is that the evil right-wing Arab-haters are, in their minds, protecting secular, liberal Dutch values, specifically the individual rights of women and gays, from evil right-wing Arab haters (hope you caught that subtle punctuation thing I did just there).

I must have discussed politics with a hundred people while I was in the Netherlands: all from Amsterdam, many gay, certainly none of whom would be considered right-wing here except that they all, all, hated Islam. I’m not defending this; “I hate them because they hate us” is still ugly and bad politics; but that’s how many secular, “liberal” Dutch people see it, especially since the assassinations of Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh – and of course there’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, once the foremost critic of Islam in the Netherlands, former VVD member of the Tweede Kamer, and not exactly a white racist.

Yes, it’s very complicated.

Posted on 05/06/2012 by Stratty

Dutch polls: not quite diseased

Just when you thought I had successfully limited my international political obsessions to Malta, Ireland, and New Zealand, I remembered my interest in Dutch politics.

Way back when (by which I mean 2006), I spent six weeks on contract in the Netherlands during the lead-up to the 2006 election, and it was way too cool to see young Socialists proselytizing on the streets of Amsterdam. It was an interesting result, with a breakthrough for both the SP and the xenophobic PVV.

This year’s election – called by VVD Prime Minister Mark Rutte (pictured) after his government lost the PVV’s support – at first glance promises a similar result, according to the latest monthly Ipsos Netherlands polls, namely a surge for the SP and the continued decline of the old-line left and right parties.

According to de Politeke Barometer, June 2, if an election were called today, the result would be:

VVD (Party for Freedom and Democracy, right-wing liberal) 32 seats, +1
SP (Socialist Party, far left) 27, +12
PvdA (Labour Party, centre-left) 24, -6
PVV (Party for Freedom, far right) 22, -2
D’66 (Democrats ’66, social liberal) 15, +5
CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal, centre-right) 14, -7
Others 15, -4

The Dutch use an almost-pure form of proportional representation, which makes government formation messy as hell. The best defense of the Netherlands’ system has to be, “Hey, at least it’s not Belgium.” Since the demise of the “purple” cabinet (PvdA, VVD, D’66) in 2002, Dutch elections have been marked by extreme voter volatility; the outgoing Rutte cabinet (VVD, CDA) only had a minority and relied on the questionable support of Geert Wilders’ PVV. Meanwhile, Labour and the Christian Democrats – formerly the bedrock of all Dutch post-war governments – have been in steady decline.

While the shift to the pro-business, yet nominally liberal VVD seems benign enough, the occasional surges for the SP and especially for anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic parties like the Pim Fortuyn List and now the Party for Freedom are frightening. In ten years there’s been a noticeable erosion of the Dutch consensus on social issues, marked by less benevolence toward multiculturalism, soft drugs, and the gays. Interestingly, there’s also a growing divide between communitarian parties of both the left and right and the more classical liberal, individualist politics of the VVD in particular (hence the PVV’s refusal to back Rutte’s austerity budget).

The recent Ipsos polls point to continued chaos in government formation, since the outgoing government, even with the PVV’s support, would come 8 seats short of a majority. The SP numbers are worrisome, if only because they lack potential coalition partners; Labour isn’t going to back a Socialist Prime Minister, and anyway, no other party except GroenLinks (“GreenLeft”) would sign up for such an arrangement.

The Dutch had a good experience, at least for a few terms, with the Kok cabinets, which seemed to broker the interests of its coalition partners rather well. Is it time for a new purple coalition including the VVD, PvdA, and D’66? Add in GroenLinks (currently projected to win 5 seats) and you’ve got yourself a razor-thin majority for a social liberal/business liberal/social democratic/environmentalist cabinet.

That may well be the most stable, least divisive result, so hey, maybe someday all those backpacking Brit tourists in Amsterdam will once again be able to smoke pot legally while ogling the legal, unionized prostitutes.

Sigh…I miss the old Netherlands.

Posted on 12/11/2011 by Stratty

Labour Green Maori NZ First Mana WTF?

I’ve followed New Zealand electoral politics for many years, rather rabidly since the Fifth Labour Government was elected in 1999, and have read the New Zealand Herald online pretty much daily since then.

Based in Auckland, the Herald has NZ’s largest newspaper circulation and a slew of political commentators ranging from former Alliance president Matt McCarten on the left to, say, former Act MP Deborah Coddington on the right.

I appreciate the content, still, reading the Herald is akin to reading the Times for Irish politics – not exactly a progressive editorial voice, but a professional media outlet with a well-organized website and lots of grist for the proverbial mill.

To some extent, the Herald’s political coverage reflects trends in NZ politics over the years – they sway in the breeze a bit, in other words. Certainly the Herald was friendliest to Labour when Helen Clark was PM and the National Party was hapless, while it’s currently, shall we say, well disposed toward the Nats who have governed since 2008 under PM John Key.

I think it’s fair to say that the Herald favours centre-right politics overall, and sometimes the appearance of bias is painfully obvious.

Having led the polls with majority support consistently for months, years even, the National Party dropped to 49.5% in the latest Herald Digipoll. “Poll shock,” the Herald breathlessly reported. Oh my good lord, the Nats have lost support and are now, what, still more popular than any other government in a Westminster democracy? Give me a break.

Suddenly the Herald was chock full of stern articles talking about the “surge” of New Zealand First (wow, what a surge – up to 3.7%!) and the scandalous possibility that the Nats wouldn’t win a majority on their own or with their preferred coalition partners.

The worst of the scaremongering came via David Farrar, who runs NZ’s most popular blog, Kiwiblog, and is described by the Herald as a “centre-right blogger” (translation: has worked for four National Party leaders). No surprise, that, though one wishes Farrar would admit to having an agenda. It’s okay. Most of us do, though few of us write for the country’s leading newspaper.

Farrar’s recent column, “What a Labour-led coalition might look like,” is laughable. Farrar supposes that there is a “small swing” to Labour (which, please note, lost support in that same poll) and makes assumptions that are by no means certain or even plausible: that NZ First reaches the 5% hurdle, that the Green, Maori & Mana parties would back a Labour government, that Peter Dunne loses and John Banks doesn’t take Epsom.

Oh come on.

Granted I’m not a big Winston Peters fan – to my mind New Zealand First represents the worst sort of populism, serving Peters’ egotistical need for attention every three years – but objectively, 3.7% being less than NZ First won in 2008, it will be tough for them to reach the hurdle. Even if they do poll over 5%, Labour didn’t exactly have a fun time when it last let Peters into cabinet and Peters has ruled out working with Labour.

The Greens are always considered to be a natural coalition partner for Labour, especially by the Herald, despite evidence to the contrary: that when Labour won its substantial minorities under Helen Clark, the Greens did not go into coalition with Labour. And it’s silly to suppose that the Maori Party, which currently supports the National government, would suddenly, capriciously, without logic or reason switch to supporting Labour, its major competitor for the Maori electorate seats.

As for the Mana Party, the idea that Hone Harawira can work with his erstwhile Maori Party colleagues – or anyone – is laughable. (Am I the only one out there who thinks Hone is the new Winston Peters of the left?)

Farrar’s highly questionable poll and seat distribution analysis aside, his suppositions about the composition of a Labour-Green-Maori-Mana-NZ First cabinet reaches heights of laughable hysteria. My hands-down favourite paragraph:

Gareth Hughes could become the Climate Change Minister entrusted with making sure New Zealand is the world leader on reducing climate emissions. Greenpeace’s target of a 40% reduction by 2020 would need around one third of the dairy herd to be euthanized over the next nine years.

Oh. My. God. If you vote anything but National (or United Future or Act), the Greens are gonna KILL ALL THE COWS!

I suspect Farrar of having another purpose in envisioning this nightmare coalition scenario, snuck into in the column’s last paragraph:

So as we head into the final fortnight before the election, a Labour-Green-NZ First-Maori-Mana Government may become a viable alternative to National winning the election. It will be MMP politics at its best. The more parties you need to agree to govern, the more consensus you get – right?

This election, Kiwis are also voting in a referendum to keep or ditch their country’s Mixed Member Proportional electoral system that has been in place since 1996, and despite polls showing majority support for retaining MMP, Farrar is, in a roundabout way, bricking us over the head with the notion that first-past-the-post would prevent all those pesky five-party leftist coalition governments (that exist only in Farrar’s imagination).

How wonderful it would be for Farrar and his ilk to have first-past-the-post back with a twenty-point spread between National and Labour. Canadians may recall the result of the 1984 federal election when the Tories won 50% of the vote and 75% of the seats, and because of its smaller size, NZ’s first-past-the-post results were once even more lopsided – that’s why voters opted for MMP in the first place.

I’m in favour of keeping MMP in New Zealand, though I prefer a ranked ballot – less kind to smaller parties, but helps to prevent wasted votes and avoids splitting MPs into two groups, electorate and list, along with it the perception that list MPs are beholden to their parties, not the voters.

I really don’t like the MMP exception that allows a party to gain list seats without reaching the 5% hurdle if it elects a single MP in an electorate. Why? It makes no sense to me. A party that fails to reach the hurdle yet elects a single MP should have, well, one MP. In 2008, Act won list seats with fewer votes that New Zealand First because of Rodney Hide’s win in Epsom – not that I was upset to see NZ First out of parliament. Still, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and all that.

Farrar’s scaremongering seems even more inappropriate when one considers that John Key and the National Party aren’t indulging in the same rhetoric. Key is a reasonable man, for a Nat, and has done the expected in having a cuppa with John Banks to indicate his tacit support for Banks to win Epsom, thereby bringing Act (and former National) leader Don Brash into the legislature as well – working the system to produce the most stable result for a continuing National-led administration.

It’s not the result I’d prefer but I respect Key for being calm, cool, and collected, and for not insulting our intelligence like certain centre-right bloggers out there.

I can’t be dead certain, but I’m pretty sure John Key has avoided, at least, spurious claims that the Greens take their marching orders from Greenpeace HQ or that the Greens are gonna KILL ALL THE COWS.

Whatever. I’m not that fond of cattle anyway.

Posted on 20/10/2011 by Stratty

Fianna Fáil in an independent’s clothing

UPDATE (28 October): According to all the usual sources (RTE, Irish Times, Journal), there is every indication that Michael D. Higgins will be elected to the presidency. Huge swing away from Gallagher because of, well, what I wrote below. As my friend @Chasaveen rightly points out, whereas the words “Fianna Fáil” did NOT scare voters, the word “bagman” caused the electorate to collectively recoil.

An RTE telephone poll found that 17% of all voters switched their preference in the last week of the campaign – since the Frontline debate widely seen as won by Higgins and McGuinness and lost by Gallagher – away from Gallagher. Of those, two-thirds went to Higgins. If the poll is correct, a whopping 12% of the entire electorate swung from one candidate to another in a few days. Wow.

—

You are – I’m sure – as entertained about the October 27 Irish presidential election as I am. Er… Well, anyway…

There are a record seven candidates this time around, and the majority are nominal independents: Mary Davis (Ind), Seán Gallagher (Ind), Michael Higgins (Labour), Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin), Gay Mitchell (Fine Gael), David Norris (Ind), and Dana Rosemary Scallon (Ind).

Of the independents, Davis is a centrist former organizer of the Special Olympics, Gallagher is best known as a Dragons’ Den panellist, Norris is a left-leaning openly gay Senator, and Dana is, well, Dana – former Eurovision winner, MEP, and social conservative who usually provides the lion’s share of giggles when she runs for office.

What’s notable about the contest, candidate-wise, is how it does and doesn’t mirror the recent general election results.

Back in February, the Irish unceremoniously turfed the governing Fianna Fáil-Green coalition, eliminating the Greens from the Dáil entirely and giving FF its worst result ever. A large number of independents were elected, and the current Fine Gael-Labour coalition government has a massive majority in the Dáil. I approved of the result because, you might say, my instinctive bias is anti-Fianna Fáil.

Appropriate, then, to see a large number of independents in the race and – after ringing its hands for several weeks – FF failed to even nominate a candidate.

Well, sort of.

Lo and behold, it turns out that Gallagher has been involved with FF forever and is a former member of the party’s national executive, so in fact if not in name there is a Fianna Fáil candidate as far as I’m concerned.

This didn’t bother me when a) I wasn’t aware and b) the early polls hinted at a very different result. Initially it was Norris, the civil rights campaigner, who led, and those of us who like left-leaning gay Irish senators could easily envision a scenario in which Norris could win on Labour, Fine Gael, and indie transfers.

To the disappointment of his early supporters, Norris’ campaign has proven to be a bit of a train wreck. Is he in? Is he out? Does he lack sound judgement, or is he just a very poor campaigner? After seeming likely to win the Oireachtas support (20 TDs or senators) needed for nomination, Norris withdrew after a scandal surrounding his writing a letter asking for clemency for a former partner who had been convicted of the statutory rape of a fifteen-year-old Palestinian boy.

But then, with multiple polls showing Norris in the lead, he re-entered the race and managed to get enough support from local councils to be nominated. However, Norris’ questionable decisions and the uncertainty of his campaign caused his poll results to plummet by something like 20 points.

Which takes us to two recent polls, published October 16 by RED C and Quantum Research.

RED C: Gallagher 39%, Higgins 27%, McGuinness 13%, Mitchell 8%, Norris 7%, Davis 4%, Scallon 2%
Quantum: Higgins 36%, Gallagher 29%, McGuinness 13%, Norris 10%, Mitchell 6%, Davis 4%, Scallon 2%

It does strike me as stunning that Gay Mitchell, despite being the lead governing party’s nominee, and FG doing well in opinion polls, can only muster single-digit support. Norris is clearly down, but then so is McGuinness, it would seem, and that’s good news. The Quantum poll doesn’t bother me; Higgins would be my second pick after Norris, for whom I have a soft spot, and it’s easy to see how Labour’s guy could get elected on second preference votes from Norris, Mitchell, and Davis.

But WTF is up with the surge for Gallagher?

My initial reaction was that Gallagher – who, after all, is known as an entrepreneur – had bought his way into popularity. Fianna Fáil’s nominal reason (besides the embarrassment of another big loss) for not nominating its own candidate was that the party lacked funds, and hearing about Gallagher’s FF links, I assumed blithely that FF had encouraged him to run as a independent and spend his own money.

However, several blogs have pointed out that Gallagher filed tax returns indicating an income of a mere 12,000 euros (about $18,000), so first, how is Gallagher a successful entrepreneur, and second, who’s funding his campaign? [Note more recent news items about fundraisers for Gallagher featuring none other than former FF Taoiseach Brian Cowen.]

But even more so, I have to ask, Ireland, what the hell are you thinking? You finally turfed the dreaded Fianna Fáil from government, so why would you consider electing a FF insider? Are you daft? Are you blinded by the shine off Gallagher’s pate? Are you that impressed by Gallagher’s being on the telly?

Norris, as Norris himself would have it, is indeed the true independent in the race. Davis is tarnished by a long career of making a living off quangos to which she was named by FF, and for heaven’s sake, Gallagher essentially quit FF in order to run as an independent.

Only 17% cast their first preference votes for FF in the February election. Even if the Quantum poll is the best barometer, that means another 10% of the populace is that impressed by Seán Gallagher, failed businessman, tacky TV panellist, and (I repeat) Fianna Fáil insider.

What a dream come true for FF. They spend no money, they don’t campaign, and in the end they get to keep the presidency. So the outgoing president, Mary McAleese, is Fianna Fáil, but by all accounts McAleese has been an apolitical president, comparable to her Labour-nominated predecessor Mary Robinson, considered by many to be the finest Irish president in history. But I don’t think Seán Gallagher is a Mary McAleese or a Mary Robinson by any stretch of the imagination.

Ireland’s financial collapse has led inexorably to a shake-up of its political scene, and I suppose the poll volatility is a reflection of the country’s fluid partisan identification – whereas in the past, the largest single bloc of voters would vote in a donkey (or even Charles Haughey) if he or she were Fianna Fáil, that’s not the case now.

So why, in less than a year, would Ireland fall back into its old, stagnant, stale, corrupt habit of choosing one of the Soldiers of Destiny as its president? The mind boggles.

For what it’s worth, I’d vote Norris, Higgins, Davis, Mitchell in that order and would rather gouge my eyes out with a grapefruit spoon or attend a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis than preference Gallagher, McGuinness, or Scallon. Well, maybe I’d rank Dana for a larf.

I figure that would get Ireland a Labour president, and that’s not so bad a result, even if Higgins does look like a hobbit.

Posted on 19/10/2011 by Stratty

Fianna Fáil in an independent’s clothing #aras11

You are – I’m sure – as entertained about the October 27 Irish presidential election as I am. Er… Well, anyway…

Of the independents, Davis is a centrist former organizer of the Special Olympics, Gallagher is best known as a Dragons’ Den panellist, Norris is a left-leaning openly gay Senator, and Dana is, well, Dana – former Eurovision contestant, MEP, and social conservative who usually provides the lion’s share of giggles when she runs for office.

What’s notable about the contest, candidate-wise, is how it does and doesn’t mirror the recent general election results.

Back in February, the Irish unceremoniously turfed the governing Fianna Fáil-Green government, eliminating the Greens from the Dáil entirely and giving FF its worst result ever. A large number of independents were elected, and the current Fine Gael-Labour coalition government has a massive majority in the Dáil. I approved of the result because, you might say, my instinctive bias is anti-Fianna Fáil.

Appropriate, then, to see a large number of independents in the race and – after ringing its hands for several weeks – FF failed to even nominate a candidate.

Well, sort of.

To the disappointment of his early supporters, Norris’ campaign has proven to be a bit of a train wreck. Is he in? Is he out? Is he scandalous? Or is he just a very poor campaigner? After seeming likely to win the Oireachtas support (20 TDs or senators) needed for nomination, Norris withdrew after a scandal surrounding his writing a letter asking for clemency for a former partner who had been convicted of the statutory rape of a fifteen-year-old Palestinian boy.

But then, you see, with multiple polls showing Norris in the lead, he re-entered the race and managed to get enough support from local councils to be nominated. However, Norris’ questionable judgement and the uncertainty of his campaign caused his poll results to plummet by something like 20 points.

Which takes us to two recent polls, published October 16 by RED C and Quantum Research.

RED C: Gallagher 39%, Higgins 27%, McGuinness 13%, Mitchell 8%, Norris 7%, Davis 4%, Scallon 2%
Quantum: Higgins 36%, Gallagher 29%, McGuinness 13%, Norris 10%, Mitchell 6%, Davis 4%, Scallon 2%

But WTF is up with the surge for Gallagher?

However, several blogs have pointed out that Gallagher filed tax returns indicating an income of a mere 12,000 euros (about $18,000), so first, how the hell is Gallagher a successful entrepreneur, and second, who’s funding his campaign?

But even more so, I have to ask, Ireland, what the hell are you thinking? You finally turfed the dreadful Fianna Fáil from government, so why would you consider electing a FF insider? Are you daft? Are you blinded by the shine off Gallagher’s pate? Are you that impressed by Gallagher’s being on the telly?

So why, in less than a year, would Ireland fall back into its old, stagnant, stale, corrupt habit of choosing one of the Soldiers of Destiny as its president? The mind boggles.

I figure that would get Ireland a Labour president, and that’s not so bad a result, even if Higgins does look like a hobbit.

Posted on 01/07/2011 by Stratty

But are these strikes wrong?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI]

Well, it’s clear why British Labour leader Ed Miliband has been dubbed the “Milibot” by satirical site NewsThump. I honestly can’t remember a train wreck of an interview like this since Stéphane Dion‘s in the ’08 election, and in this instance the interviewer was very fair. I do love the interviewer’s slight irritated tone when he comments that they had Francis Maude on the show and he was quite conciliatory (and presumably didn’t repeat the same three remarks ad nauseum).

It’s not that Milibot needs more coaching, I wouldn’t say. One can imagine his advisors drumming the soundbites into his head, but seriously, one has to assume the Opposition leader has at least a rudimentary grasp of filling in the blanks.

Now repeat after me: reckless and provocative manner, put aside the rhetoric, get around the negotiating table, and above all, these strikes are wrong. And I mean that unanimously.

I don’t get UK politics right now. The Coalition is vastly unpopular for massive cuts made necessary by the previous Labour administration’s recessionary spending. The Lib Dems are shite now because instead of letting the Tories form a minority government that would have fallen already, the party went into government. The Coalition replaced Labour, the government that brought Britain the Iraq War, identity cards, ASBOs and Margaret Hodge’s heartfelt understanding of why working class white people vote BNP.

Sorry, the Coalition isn’t an improvement why? At least from a social-liberal point-of-view, there’s a lot to like about Cleggeron, and yes, cuts are dreadful but the federal Liberals here had no choice after 1993 and neither does the Coalition now.

What’s happening with the Lib Dems is tragic, just tragic. Worse even than the by-election ass-kickings (e.g. 2.2% yesterday in Inverclyde) or the regional assembly drubbings is the realization Clegg and his party must be having: that they aren’t much more than a protest vote. Their previous low-to-mid-twenties support is just dust now, and all over the UK, Lib Dem activists must be reeling in existential angst, wondering what they did to deserve their fate. I don’t have an answer.

Meanwhile, Labour holds Inverclyde with a reduced but respectable majority as the Milibot natters on about the rights of those who suffer the most heinous discrimination, parents and the public, and I, for one, find it refreshing that finally a politician out there is appealing to families and everyone in society.

P.S. These strikes are wrong.

Posted on 19/06/2011 by Stratty

I know what David Norris is up to…

…and I’m not sure it’s going to work.

Norris is the independent (but decidedly left-leaning) Irish Senator who is the current perceived front-runner in the upcoming Irish presidential election (around 40% support according to some polls, though this was before the controversy to which I allude below).

Given that Norris, founder of the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform, was the first open homosexual to win (semi-) elected office in Ireland, I should be wildly excited about his candidacy and chances, but I’m not.

See, I think Norris thinks he’s Mary Robinson. Robinson was elected as president in 1990, humiliating Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the process. Her victory foreshadowed the ’92 “Spring Tide” when Labour under leader Dick Spring doubled its vote and brought about the first (and, I’m guessing, last) coalition with Fianna Fáil. (Ewwww.)

I have a few problems with the assumption that Norris could be the next Mary (Robinson):

In 1990, Robinson had the support of two (albeit smaller) political parties: the Workers’ Party, which is no longer a force in electoral politics; and Labour, which has already nominated the Teachta Dála from Hobbiton, Michael D Higgins, as its presidential candidate.
Given his remarks on man-boy love – never mind that he was chatting about the ancient Greeks, this is Ireland – Norris is more controversial than Robinson ever was, and early on in the campaign to boot.
Robinson’s leading competitor in 1990, Brian Lenihan Snr., was Tánaiste and considered unbeatable as every president elected to date had Fianna Fáil’s blessing. Lenihan had been slipping in the polls (to a low of 31% mid-campaign) and Fine Gael was perceived as weak, so voters flocked to Robinson instead especially after a vicious attack by a FF TD. Many believe that it was the women of Ireland who ultimately decided the election in Robinson’s favour.
Fine Gael is not now weak; it is the larger partner in the government coalition, the largest party of local government, and they want to win this.

Of course, you never know, and Irish politics are nothing if not dramatic and weird. Neither Fianna Fáil nor Sinn Fein seem likely to nominate official candidates, and yes, let’s just pause a moment to chew on that. FF, formerly a party that freaked out if it won less than 40% of the vote, is now too weak and apparently broke to field a candidate. And where will those FF and SF votes go?

Well, probably not to Norris. New York-based journalist Niall O’Dowd is trying to solicit support from the republican parties’ TDs for his independent bid, but it’s entirely likely that the Soldiers of Destiny will sit on their hands, amounting to a tacit endorsement of the FG candidate. Weird, but this year’s election has seemingly broken the back of dichotomous Civil War politics.

While Norris has had a heck of a time winning the municipal council support that would allow his nomination, the senator might take heart when he considers the troubles Fine Gael has had over its selection process, with former President of the European Parliament, former Progressive Democrat, and perhaps Ireland’s ultimate political loose cannon Pat Cox being the most talked-about contender. The choice of Cox, who as a PD TD previously supported FF administrations, would be like sucking lemons for diehard Blueshirts.

So we’ll see. I still like the idea of Norris as president, especially compared to some bland, undistinguished Fine Gael MEP, though my political junkie side would love to see Pat Cox get in…if only for the dead cert that he’d quit the party mid-term and piss off everyone in the process.

May you live in interesting times, Ireland!

Beyond the 140

Observations about politics and real life from @stratosphear

Category Archives: World Politics